4. Philippine Movie Pictures Workers_ Association vs. Premiere Productions, Inc., G.R. No. L-5621, March 25, 1953

8/22/2019 4. Philippine Movie Pictures Workers_ Association vs. Premiere Productions, Inc., G.R. No. L-5621, March 25, 1953

1/6

SUPREME COURTEN BANC

PHILIPPINE MOVIE PICTURESWORKERS ASSOCIATION,

Petitioner,

-versus- G.R. No. L-5621March 25, 1953

PREMIERE PRODUCTIONS, INC.,Respondent.

x---------------------------------------------------x

D E C I S I O N

BAUTISTA ANGELO,J.:

This is a Petition for Review of two orders of the Court of IndustrialRelations, one dated November 8, 1951, and the other November 24,1951, which give authority to respondent to lay off forty- four (44) ofits employees in accordance with its urgent petition on condition that,in the event work is available in the future where their ability may berequired, the same workers should be reemployed and that, if afterthe termination of the case, the court would find that at the time oftheir layoff work was available, the respondent shall pay to them the

back wages to which they are entitled. These two orders were upheldby the court in banc in a resolution dated March 10, 1952, which isalso involved in the present petition for review. chanroblespublishingcompany
http://www.chanrobles.com/http://www.chanrobles.com/


2/6

On October 2, 1951, respondent filed with the Court of IndustrialRelations an urgent petition seeking authority to lay off 44 men

working in three of its departments, the first batch to be laid off thirty(30) days after the filing of the petition and the rest 45 daysthereafter, in order that in the intervening period it may finish thefilming of its pending picture. The ground for the lay off is thefinancial losses which respondent was allegedly suffering during thecurrent year. chanroblespublishingcompany

Petitioner opposed the request alleging that the claim of financiallosses has no basis in fact it being only an act of retaliation on the partof respondent for the strike staged by the workers days before in anattempt to harass and intimidate them and weaken and destroy theunion to which they belong. chanroblespublishingcompany

On November 5, 1951, date when the urgent petition was set forhearing, at the request of counsel for respondent, Hon. Arsenio C.Roldan, presiding judge of the Court of Industrial Relations, held anocular inspection of the studios and filming premises of respondent inthe course of which he interrogated about fifteen laborers who werethen present in the place. On the strength of the evidence adducedduring the ocular inspection Judge Roldan issued an order onNovember 8, 1951, allowing respondent to lay off the workersmentioned in its petition with respect to Unit No. 2 and those

assigned to the Ground Maintenance Department subject to thecondition that, in the event that work is available in the future, theyshould be reemployed. With respect to the workers assigned to UnitNo. 1, the hearing was postponed. chanroblespublishingcompany

A subsequent hearing was held in connection with the workersassigned to Unit No. 1 and on the strength of the evidence submitted

by respondent, Judge Roldan again found the petition justifiable andauthorized their lay off in an order dated November 24, 1951, under

the same condition as those contained in his previous order.chanroblespublishingcompany

Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of both orders datedNovember 8 and November 24, 1951, which motion the court in bancdenied in a resolution issued on March 10, 1952. Hence this petitionfor review.
http://www.chanrobles.com/http://www.chanrobles.com/http://www.chanrobles.com/http://www.chanrobles.com/http://www.chanrobles.com/http://www.chanrobles.com/http://www.chanrobles.com/http://www.chanrobles.com/


3/6

The only issue submitted to this court for consideration is: May theCourt of Industrial Relations authorize the layoff of workers on the

basis of an ocular inspection without receiving full evidence todetermine the cause or motive of such layoff? chanroblespublishingcompany

It appears that when the case was called for hearing to look into themerits of the urgent petition of respondent seeking to lay off 44 men

who were working in three of its departments on the ground of lack ofwork and because its business was suffering financial losses duringthe current year, the court, which was then represented by itspresiding Judge, decided to make an ocular inspection of the studiosand filming premises of respondent following a request made to thateffect by its counsel, and in the course of said inspection JudgeRoldan proceeded to interrogate the workers he found in the place in

the presence of the counsel of both parties. The testimony of thoseinterrogated was taken down and the counsel of both parties wereallowed to cross-examine them. Judge Roldan also proceeded toexamine some of the records of respondent company among them thetime cards of some workers which showed that while the workersreported for work, when their presence was checked they were foundto be no longer in the premises. And on the strength of the findingsmade by Judge Roldan in this ocular inspection he reached theconclusion that the petition for layoff was justified because there wasno more work for the laborers to do in connection with the different

jobs given to them. It is; now contended that such a procedure isunfair to the labor union in that it deprived the workers affected ofthe opportunity to disprove what apparently was represented to thecourt during the ocular inspection which at best may only be theresult of a prearrangement devised by the company to justify its claimof lack of work and that what the court should have done was to makea full-dress investigation if not a formal hearing giving both parties allthe time and opportunity to present their evidence before decidingsuch an important matter which affects the position and the only

means of livelihood of the workers affected by the petition. In otherwords, the petitioning labor union claims that with the procedureadopted by the court the workers were deprived of their employment

without due process of law. chanroblespublishingcompany

The claim of petitioner that the laborers were not given anopportunity to present their evidence to disprove the claim of lack of
http://www.chanrobles.com/http://www.chanrobles.com/http://www.chanrobles.com/http://www.chanrobles.com/


4/6

work is disputed by counsel for respondent company who claims thatthe labor union had its day in court because its counsel was present inthe investigation or ocular inspection and even presented some

witnesses to protect its interest. The record before the court on thismatter is not clear and for such reason it has no way of determiningthe truth of both claims. The stenographic notes taken during theocular inspection have not been elevated for the reason undoubtedlythat this is a petition for review and the only issue before the court isone of law. In the face of this confusing situation on an issue which isdeterminative of the controversy, the only guide that the court finds isthe order itself of the court of origin which happily contains areference to the evidence that it has considered and which has servedas basis for its conclusion resulting in the layoff of the workers in

whose behalf the present petition was brought before this court. We

refer to the order of November 8, 1951, subject of the petition forreview, wherein Judge Roldan makes express mention of the evidenceadduced during the ocular inspection. We take it that such evidencecan only refer to the testimony given by the workers interrogated byhim and to whatever documents he found or examined in the courseof such inspection. It is true, as counsel for respondent avers, thathearings were conducted by the court a quo on October 8 and 15,1951, and on November 5, 6, 8, 15 and 21, 1951, but it is likewise truethat those hearings do not necessarily refer to the petition underconsideration but to other matters and incidents which were then

before the court for determination such as the petition of the laborunion containing fourteen (14) demands and the petition of the sameunion to declare respondent in contempt for having violated certaindirectives of the court. At any rate, this matter does not appear clearand we are inclined to resolve the doubt in favor of labor consideringthe spirit of our Constitution. chanroblespublishingcompany

The right to labor is a constitutional as well as a statutory right. Everyman has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry. A man who

has been employed to undertake certain labor and has put into it histime and effort is entitled to be protected. The right of a person to hislabor is deemed to be property within the meaning of constitutionalguarantees. That is his means of livelihood. He cannot be deprived ofhis labor or work without due process of law (11 Am. Jur., 333, pp.1151-1153; 11 Am. Jur., section 344, pp. 1168- 1171). chanroblespublishingcompany


5/6

Although the Court of Industrial Relations, in the determination ofany question or controversy, may adopt its own rules of procedureand may act according to justice and equity without regard totechnicalities, and for that matter is not bound by any technical rulesof evidence (section 20, Commonwealth Act No. 103), this broadgrant of power should not be interpreted to mean that it can ignore ordisregard the fundamental requirements of due process in the trialsand investigations of cases brought before it for determination. Asaptly pointed out by this court, there are certain cardinal primaryrights which the Court of Industrial Relations must respect in the trialof every labor case. One of them is the right to a hearing whichincludes the right of the party interested to present his own case andsubmit evidence in support thereof (Manila Trading and Supply Co.

vs. Philippine Labor Union, 71 Phil., 124, 129). An ocular inspection of

the establishment or premises involved is proper if the court finds itnecessary, but such is authorized only to help the court in clearing adoubt, reaching a conclusion, or finding the truth. But it is not themain trial nor should it exclude the presentation of other evidence

which the parties may deem necessary to establish their case. It ismerely an auxiliary remedy the law affords the parties or the court toreach an enlightened determination of the case. chanroblespublishingcompany

Considering the merits of the controversy before us, we are of theopinion that the required due process has not been followed. The

court a quo merely acted on the strength of the ocular inspection itconducted in the premises of the respondent company. The petitionfor layoff was predicated on the lack of work and of the further factthat the company was incurring financial losses. These allegationscannot be established by a mere inspection of the place of laborspecially when such inspection was conducted at the request of theinterested party. As counsel for petitioner says, such inspection couldat best witness the superficial fact of cessation of work but it couldnot be determinative of the larger and more fundamental issue of lack

of work due to lack of funds. This fundamental issue cannot bedetermined without looking into the financial situation of therespondent company. In fact, this matter is now being looked into bythe court a quo in connection with the fourteen demands of the laborunion, but before finishing its inquiry it decided to grant the lay-offpending final determination of the main case. This action is in ouropinion premature and has worked injustice to the laborers. chanroblespublishingcompany


6/6

WHEREFORE, the orders subject of the present petition for revieware hereby set aside, and it is ordered that the case be remanded tothe court of origin for further proceedings giving to petitioner anopportunity to present its evidence in support of its opposition to theurgent petition for layoff of respondent company. No pronouncementas to costs. chanroblespublishingcompany

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, Jugo andLabrador,JJ., concur.

Tuason and Montemayor,JJ., concur in the result.chanroblespublishingcompany

Documents

4. Philippine Movie Pictures Workers_ Association vs. Premiere Productions, Inc., G.R. No. L-5621, March 25, 1953